Wednesday, November 14, 2012

any payment extorted by intimidation, as by threats of injurious revelations or accusations.

If then CIA Director David Petraeus was instructed to give false testimony to Congress in the days after the 9/11/12 Benghazi attack in exchange for his extramarital affair to remain under wraps, that would be a form of blackmail. The payment would be his compliance / false testimony. We now know that Petraeus did in fact give false testimony on 9/13/12.

The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

The question then becomes: Did Petraeus knowingly give false testimony?

According to the October 26th speech by his alleged mistress, Paula Broadwell, Petraeus knew what was happening "within 24 hours" of the attack. If that can be confirmed, then we can rightfully conclude that Petraeus DID knowingly give false testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.

This leads to a very simple question: Why did he do it?

With hindsight, a few important things have come to light:

The Obama administration wanted to push a narrative that said the attack in Benghazi was caused by a reaction to the anti-Muhammad video, as evidenced by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's five appearances on five different Sunday shows in which she parroted that narrative.

The amazing thing here is that because these officials had this information and didn't act on it, Petraeus was indeed susceptible to blackmail, not by external forces but by internal ones - the Obama administration itself.

Here is Charles Krauthammer speaking to this very thing on November 13th:

Or how about Lt. Col. Ralph Peters from November 9th:

As has been made clear since news broke of an extramarital affair between CIA Director David Petraeus and his biographer Paula Broadwell, the reason it is significant is because it exposed him to blackmail. Since his resignation, we have been told by pundits and reporters that while the Petraeus affair was unfortunate, it ultimately posed no threat to national security.

Retired Gen. James "Spider" Marks, for whom Broadwell once worked and who knows Petraeus, said he doubts security protocols were breached despite what seems an unlikely indiscretion on the part of Petraeus.

"There's almost zero percent chance that national security was compromised or at risk," he said Monday.

...the affair between former general and ex-CIA director David Petraeus and his biographer, Paula Broadwell, may not have any greater national security implications than the celebrated affair of Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor during the filming of “Cleopatra.”

Matthew Miller at the POLITICO, which is essentially a White House ventriloquist dummy, insists that the FBI followed the rulebook in its handling of the matter:

In this case, it appears the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation handled the matter entirely in keeping with those rules and precedents. And, importantly, they passed the most crucial test faced whenever the department investigates a senior member of the existing administration: They conducted the entire investigation without playing favorites and without a hint of political interference.

For the sake of argument, let's assume Miller is right and that the handling of the Petraeus matter by DOJ and FBI was flawless. He doesn't account for one very disturbing possibility.